James H. Schmitz : Telzey Amberdon & TNT:Telzey & Trigger
Arnold Bailey
Hi. I'm like to urge everyone who's willing to visit your local bookstores,
especially the big chains where most sales take place, and, uh --
(Diplomacy, Flint, diplomacy)
ENCOURAGE them to start ordering copies of the Schmitz's book.
We are facing a weird situation here, folks. I've been tracking Telzey's
sales on Amazon closely for the past few days, and there the news is GREAT.
Telzey spent well over 24 hours yesterday ranked in Amazon's top 1000
sellers, most of it near the 500 mark. The highest ranking the book
received was 496. Even the second volume of the series, TnT -- which isn't
coming out for another 3 months -- has ranked in the top 5000 for most of
the past 24 hours.
For those of you not familiar with Amazon's rankings, that kind of rank is
EXTREMELY high, especially for a paperback. Most paperbacks never break
into the top 1000 at all, much less stay there for over a day.
At the same time, Jim tells me that the overall orders for Telzey have been
very low. Keep in mind that most sales occur through the walk-in
bookstores, especially the big chains. Amazon is a significant part of the
market, but it's much smaller than the chain stores.
What we're seeing here is the worst version of a quandary that all too many
authors (and publishers) are familiar with. The big chains tend to order
books based on the author's past sales, as reflected in their computer
records. Given that Schmitz died before the computer era, and his books
have been essentially out of print for almost twenty years, that means his
"official track record" is zilch.
This is frustrating enough for any author. For an author like Schmitz, the
situation borders on the absurd. The phenomenally high rankings in Amazon
tells you the truth. There is simply no way to explain that except as pure
demand. But it's not being reflected anywhere else, for the good and simple
reason that people can't walk into a bookstore and buy a book that isn't on
the shelves.
So. I would like to urge everyone, any time you drop into a bookstore, to
check and see if Schmitz is being ordered. The chances are that it isn't,
unless it's a specialty SF store (which are a very small part of the market)
or a chain store which happens to have someone who knows SF. If so, please
talk to the store and, uh --
(Diplomacy, Flint, diplomacy)
Encourage them to start ordering it. :)
Eric
Sample Chapters at:
Telzey Amberdon
http://www.baen.com/chapters/W200001/0671578510.htm?blurb
TNT: Telzey & Trigger
http://www.baen.com/chapters/W200004/0671578790.htm?blurb
Sea Wasp
>
> From: "Eric Flint" <efl...@home.com>
Based on Flint's description of his edits, don't buy this. Wait for
someone to reprint who has a vague respect for the original author.
--
Sea Wasp http://www.wizvax.net/seawasp/index.html
/^\
;;; _Morgantown: The Jason Wood Chronicles_, at
http://www.hyperbooks.com/catalog/20040.html
George D. Phillies
On Fri, 31 Mar 2000, Sea Wasp wrote:
> Arnold Bailey wrote:
> >
> > From: "Eric Flint" <efl...@home.com>
>
> Based on Flint's description of his edits, don't buy this. Wait for
> someone to reprint who has a vague respect for the original author.
I have seen the edits, which were trivial. Sea Wasp's claims are complete
and total baloney. The edits showed enormous respect for the author, who,
incidentally, appears to have made significant changes in material before
moving form magazine to book form.
George,
who has a published book, and has dealt with editors.
though I concede *Elementary Lectures in Statistical Mechanics*, which
you should all buy, is a little lower on the Amazon.com popularity list.
Arnold Bailey
"Sea Wasp" <sea...@wizvax.net> wrote in message
news:38E4A9...@wizvax.net...
> Arnold Bailey wrote:
> >
> > From: "Eric Flint" <efl...@home.com>
>
> Based on Flint's description of his edits, don't buy this. Wait for
> someone to reprint who has a vague respect for the original author.
>
> Sea Wasp http://www.wizvax.net/seawasp/index.html
> /^\
> ;;; _Morgantown: The Jason Wood Chronicles_, at
> http://www.hyperbooks.com/catalog/20040.html
Sounds like an excellent way of insuring that no more Schmitz books would
ever be printed! At least Baen was willing to deal with the problems of
resurrecting Schmitz. Boycotting the books will just convince everyone in
the industry that Schmitz is dead issue.
All a boycott does is give Schmitz a new track record of not selling and no
publisher will bother to try in the future. There has been agitation for a
rerelease of the =Witches of Karres= . Think any publisher will want to
publish it if these books fail?
If you want to be a purist, buya copy and compare it with the originals and
come up with a concordance showing the differences. That way it's a service
to those with an interest rather than a disservice to all.
Jim Mann
Arnold Bailey wrote in message ...
>Sounds like an excellent way of insuring that no more Schmitz books would
>ever be printed! At least Baen was willing to deal with the problems of
>resurrecting Schmitz. Boycotting the books will just convince everyone in
>the industry that Schmitz is dead issue.
>
I doubt at. The Best of James Schmitz has sold continuously for years.
---
Jim Mann
David G. Bell
sea...@wizvax.net "Sea Wasp" wrote:
> Arnold Bailey wrote:
> >
> > From: "Eric Flint" <efl...@home.com>
>
> Based on Flint's description of his edits, don't buy this. Wait for
> someone to reprint who has a vague respect for the original author.
I'd rather trust Eric Flint than I would you.
--
David G. Bell -- Farmer, SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.
Copyright 2000 David G. Bell
E. W. Bennefeld
I read both the original and the Baen edition, and I was quite pleased
with Flint's edits.
Liz
P.S. Also enjoyed _1632_ very much.
On Fri, 31 Mar 2000 08:33:39 -0500, Sea Wasp <sea...@wizvax.net>
wrote:
>Arnold Bailey wrote:
>>
>> From: "Eric Flint" <efl...@home.com>
>
> Based on Flint's description of his edits, don't buy this. Wait for
>someone to reprint who has a vague respect for the original author.
--
E. W. Bennefeld @sff.net
http://www.patchworkprose.com
Dan Swartzendruber
benn...@sff.net says...
>
> I read both the original and the Baen edition, and I was quite pleased
> with Flint's edits.
This is a pattern I've seen since this whole brouhaha got started. I
haven't yet heard one of the negative people who has actually bothered to
read what they are criticizing.
Steve Parker
wrote:
>I read both the original and the Baen edition, and I was quite pleased
>with Flint's edits.
>
Having read both, can you give an example of the kind of edits that
Flint's making?
I've heard people claiming that Flint tried to make Schmitz "kewl"-er
by adding references to the internet, etc and generally "modernizing"
them. (which would annoy me a lot)
I've also heard people who say that he's cleaned up minor continuity
errors (a character is called "Jim" on page 40 and "John" on page
112), typos, etc. (which is what an editor is supposed to do)
Given the reaction of people who's taste I trust, the edits seem to be
more in the second category, but I'd still like some feedback from
someone who's *read* both versions.
Thanks!
Steve
--
Hugo-Reviews Page (and cover scans) at
http://www.crosswinds.net/~sparker9/home.html
(Note new location. Update your bookmarks.)
Sea Wasp
>
> > Arnold Bailey wrote:
> > >
> > > From: "Eric Flint" <efl...@home.com>
> >
> > Based on Flint's description of his edits, don't buy this. Wait for
> > someone to reprint who has a vague respect for the original author.
>
Whatever. I'm judging based on what Flint himself said about his edits.
He seems inordinately proud of deciding how to rewrite someone's books
when they're not there to decide whether they need any rewriting.
I'll certainly read 'em. In the bookstore, like I do any book before I
buy it.
Then I can tell you for certain what the edits amount to.
Sea Wasp
>
> In article <38E4A9...@wizvax.net>,
> sea...@wizvax.net wrote:
> > Arnold Bailey wrote:
> > >
> > > From: "Eric Flint" <efl...@home.com>
> >
> > Based on Flint's description of his edits, don't buy this. Wait for
> > someone to reprint who has a vague respect for the original author.
> >
> > Sea Wasp http://www.wizvax.net/seawasp/index.html
> > /^\
> > ;;; _Morgantown: The Jason Wood Chronicles_, at
> > http://www.hyperbooks.com/catalog/20040.html
> you should read the book BEFORE you cry foul? I have the original books
> and I have Eric's edit. It is good, and makes an excellent introduction
> for the people who have not previously read any of Schmitz's books.
> I would also point out that it is EXTERMELY unlikely that anyone else
> will ever print anymore of Schmitz's books if this publication does not
> suceed.
This is patent nonsense. NESFA's The Best of James Schmidtz has sold
quite nicely, thank you, and I think they're more than smart enough to
know that if Baen drops the rights, NESFA can snatch them and publish.
This time without modifying so much as one "!E!x!c!e!s!s!i!v!e
!e!x!c!l!a!m!a!t!i!o!n! !p!o!i!n!t!!!".
Petty I may be, but dammit, if I die and anyone decides to take, say,
Morgantown: The Jason Wood Files and republish it, I'll rise from my
grave and beat 'em to death with an iBook if they screw around with my
wording. So WHAT if they make it better? The story is the way I wrote
it, and republishing means to REpublish.
pss...@my-deja.com
sea...@wizvax.net wrote:
> Arnold Bailey wrote:
> >
> > From: "Eric Flint" <efl...@home.com>
>
> Based on Flint's description of his edits, don't buy this. Wait for
> someone to reprint who has a vague respect for the original author.
>
> --
> Sea Wasp http://www.wizvax.net/seawasp/index.html
> /^\
> ;;; _Morgantown: The Jason Wood Chronicles_, at
> http://www.hyperbooks.com/catalog/20040.html
I don't want to get into a flame war or anything, but don't you think
you should read the book BEFORE you cry foul? I have the original books
and I have Eric's edit. It is good, and makes an excellent introduction
for the people who have not previously read any of Schmitz's books.
I would also point out that it is EXTERMELY unlikely that anyone else
will ever print anymore of Schmitz's books if this publication does not
suceed.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Elisabeth Carey
>
> In article <38E4A9...@wizvax.net>,
> sea...@wizvax.net wrote:
> > Arnold Bailey wrote:
> > >
> > > From: "Eric Flint" <efl...@home.com>
> >
> > Based on Flint's description of his edits, don't buy this. Wait for
> > someone to reprint who has a vague respect for the original author.
> >
> > --
> > Sea Wasp http://www.wizvax.net/seawasp/index.html
> > /^\
> > ;;; _Morgantown: The Jason Wood Chronicles_, at
> > http://www.hyperbooks.com/catalog/20040.html
> I don't want to get into a flame war or anything, but don't you think
> you should read the book BEFORE you cry foul? I have the original books
> and I have Eric's edit. It is good, and makes an excellent introduction
> for the people who have not previously read any of Schmitz's books.
> I would also point out that it is EXTERMELY unlikely that anyone else
> will ever print anymore of Schmitz's books if this publication does not
> suceed.
_The Best of James H. Schmitz_ has been selling steadily for nearly a
decade, now.
Lis Carey
Paula Lieberman
news:uphTueym$GA.361@cpmsnbbsa04...
> > >
> > > From: "Eric Flint" <efl...@home.com>
> >
> > Based on Flint's description of his edits, don't buy this. Wait for
> > someone to reprint who has a vague respect for the original author.
> >
> > --
> > Sea Wasp http://www.wizvax.net/seawasp/index.html
> > /^\
> > ;;; _Morgantown: The Jason Wood Chronicles_, at
> > http://www.hyperbooks.com/catalog/20040.html
>
> ever be printed! At least Baen was willing to deal with the problems of
> resurrecting Schmitz. Boycotting the books will just convince everyone in
> the industry that Schmitz is dead issue.
>
no
> publisher will bother to try in the future. There has been agitation for a
> rerelease of the =Witches of Karres= . Think any publisher will want to
> publish it if these books fail?
There is a non-Baen hardcover anthology of some of Schmitz' work that is
in-print and highly likely to stay in print for the foreseeable future.
http://www.nesfa.org/press/ShortListOfBooks.html
James H. Schmitz The Best of James H. Schmitz $18.95 0-915368-46-3
George D. Phillies
On Sat, 1 Apr 2000, Paula Lieberman wrote:
> There is a non-Baen hardcover anthology of some of Schmitz' work that is
> in-print and highly likely to stay in print for the foreseeable future.
>
> http://www.nesfa.org/press/ShortListOfBooks.html
>
> James H. Schmitz The Best of James H. Schmitz $18.95 0-915368-46-3
How many tens of thousands of copies is it selling, Paula? These large
stores do computer searches on sales, and if there are no sales, the next
book is not bought either. This sort of book is fine for private
collectors but it is not going to get Schmitz into stores. Delany iirc
described how this works at several cons.
George
Paula Lieberman
news:Pine.OSF.4.21.00040...@wpi.WPI.EDU...
It's probably in some Borders, and and there are Baker & Taylor orders.
I've seen various NESFA Press books in Borders stores, especially the
Bujold, the Cordwainer Smiths, the Kornbluth, the Clements.... there have
been a number of reviews of various NESFA Press books in Publishers' Weekly,
and NESFA is publishing/reprinting several thousands of books a year
As for "how many thousands" -- I don't know, but the sales of -most-
hardcovers are fewer than most people probably suspect. There's a reaon
why the "trade paperback" format has gotten so prevalent -- the production
costs are lower than hardcovers, and the breakeven volumes are lower than
hardcovers, and a -lot- lower than paperback.
You're also looking at different issues -- the NESFA Schmitz book went into
print and has -stayed- there. All his -other- work went into got published,
and when it went out of print, went out of print and stayed out of print,
with a few exceptions of things that saw more than one edition. Out of
print is out of print -- it doesn't matter if you come looking for the book
two days after it's pulled from the shelves or thirty years, if it's gone of
out print, have fun trying to find a copy....
>
> George
>
>
thomas monaghan
aRJay
writes
>Arnold Bailey wrote:
>>
>> From: "Eric Flint" <efl...@home.com>
>
> Based on Flint's description of his edits, don't buy this. Wait for
>someone to reprint who has a vague respect for the original author.
>
reading list, for proof reading the scans of the Schmitz stories 'we'
were putting together to try and get one volume published, I have seen
the before and after of one of Eric's heavier edits. I have to say that
if I hadn't been aware of what the changes were I wouldn't have
suspected that they had happened.
Some people in these threads have been attacking Eric for wanting to do
update's in the stories, however it is my recollection that the driving
force for this was actually Jim Baen not Eric, if I have this wrong I am
sure someone will jump in.
I would like to say something about attacking peoples work on what is
little better than hearsay evidence and not being prepared to check the
evidence directly but I'd better not.
Yes I like many here would love to see a complete collection of Schmitz
work and would like this collection to be leather bound on acid free
paper with permanent ink and wonderful illustrations (where
appropriate), all this to be at an affordable price. But as has been
said how likely are further major publishing resurrection attempts if
this one fails because people followed Sea Wasps (and others) advice.
--
How does a rocket/jet engine work?
"It's not that hard.
Stuff goes in, stuff happens, stuff goes out faster than it came in."
- Ian Stirling
aRJay
aRJay
<lis....@mediaone.net> writes
>> > >
>> > > From: "Eric Flint" <efl...@home.com>
>> >
>> > Based on Flint's description of his edits, don't buy this. Wait for
>> > someone to reprint who has a vague respect for the original author.
>> >
>> > Sea Wasp http://www.wizvax.net/seawasp/index.html
>> > /^\
>> > ;;; _Morgantown: The Jason Wood Chronicles_, at
>> > http://www.hyperbooks.com/catalog/20040.html
>> you should read the book BEFORE you cry foul? I have the original books
>> and I have Eric's edit. It is good, and makes an excellent introduction
>> for the people who have not previously read any of Schmitz's books.
>> I would also point out that it is EXTERMELY unlikely that anyone else
>> will ever print anymore of Schmitz's books if this publication does not
>> suceed.
>
>_The Best of James H. Schmitz_ has been selling steadily for nearly a
>decade, now.
>
Uh Lis how easy is the NESFA book to find if you are like I was a few
years ago i.e. not into fandom, not in the US and not within reach of a
specialist SF bookshop, I will point out that at that time I was in
reach of a good bookshop that would order books from the US if you knew
about them and could provide the relevant information.
Heck I had found fandom, SF cons and specialist bookshops for a decade
or more before I was aware of NESFA and now aware I still don't have any
of their books because in general I prefer paperback (takes up less
space, lighter) and as far as I know they only do hardbacks.
Sea Wasp
> Uh Lis how easy is the NESFA book to find if you are like I was a few
> years ago i.e. not into fandom,
Well, Borders carries the NESFA books. I know, I work there part-time.
We regularly get the new ones and can order the older ones.
Elisabeth Carey
>
> In article <38E5643C...@mediaone.net>, Elisabeth Carey
> <lis....@mediaone.net> writes
> >pss...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <38E4A9...@wizvax.net>,
> >> sea...@wizvax.net wrote:
> >> > Arnold Bailey wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > From: "Eric Flint" <efl...@home.com>
> >> >
> >> > Based on Flint's description of his edits, don't buy this. Wait for
> >> > someone to reprint who has a vague respect for the original author.
> >> >
> >> > Sea Wasp http://www.wizvax.net/seawasp/index.html
> >> > /^\
> >> > ;;; _Morgantown: The Jason Wood Chronicles_, at
> >> > http://www.hyperbooks.com/catalog/20040.html
> >> you should read the book BEFORE you cry foul? I have the original books
> >> and I have Eric's edit. It is good, and makes an excellent introduction
> >> for the people who have not previously read any of Schmitz's books.
> >> I would also point out that it is EXTERMELY unlikely that anyone else
> >> will ever print anymore of Schmitz's books if this publication does not
> >> suceed.
> >
> >_The Best of James H. Schmitz_ has been selling steadily for nearly a
> >decade, now.
> >
>
> specialist SF bookshop, I will point out that at that time I was in
> reach of a good bookshop that would order books from the US if you knew
> about them and could provide the relevant information.
Borders carries NESFA Press books--including _The Best of James H.
Schmitz_. You can find our books on Amazon and Barnesandnoble.com. We
have our own website with a full catalog online; we can't do e-sales
yet, but you can print an order form and fax or mail your order
directly from us.
The only one of those three methods that perhaps requires an awareness
of the possibility of fandom existing is the NESFA website. Only
walking into a Borders requires that you be in the US--the three
websites are available basically anywhere you have web access.
Also, our books are listed in Books in Print, and carried by major
distributors, so that if your only access is to a good local
bookstore, but you know enough to ask about the existence of any
Schmitz books, if your local bookstore has access to Books in Print,
they can find us and get the book for you.
> Heck I had found fandom, SF cons and specialist bookshops for a decade
> or more before I was aware of NESFA and now aware I still don't have any
> of their books because in general I prefer paperback (takes up less
> space, lighter) and as far as I know they only do hardbacks.
We also do some trade paperbacks. Not of every title, though.
Lis Carey
http://www.nesfa.org/press/
Dan Swartzendruber
says...
> Borders carries NESFA Press books--including _The Best of James H.
> Schmitz_. You can find our books on Amazon and Barnesandnoble.com. We
> have our own website with a full catalog online; we can't do e-sales
> yet, but you can print an order form and fax or mail your order
> directly from us.
Well, I have a hardback of "The Best of James H. Schmitz". I've had it
for at least a couple of years now. It only contains about 1/4 of the
stories I know of. Last I asked, there were no plans to do any further
books in that line. So what was plan B?
Sea Wasp
Baen fails. Drops license. NESFA publishes 'em.
Dan Swartzendruber
> >
> > Well, I have a hardback of "The Best of James H. Schmitz". I've had it
> > for at least a couple of years now. It only contains about 1/4 of the
> > stories I know of. Last I asked, there were no plans to do any further
> > books in that line. So what was plan B?
>
> Baen fails. Drops license. NESFA publishes 'em.
Only problem with that is that NESFA did the first book before Baen even
had any interest in this project (as I said, TBoJHS was done several
years ago). Unless you're saying that Baen had the rights to the other
stories all that time and was just sitting on them? Regardless of that,
you'll forgive me if I don't take a handwave like this from an anonymous
poster about what NESF would or wouldn't do?
Sea Wasp
> Regardless of that,
> you'll forgive me if I don't take a handwave like this from an anonymous
> poster about what NESF would or wouldn't do?
I ain't anonymous. More people know me as "Sea Wasp" than know me by my
real name, since I've been using that name since '77.
Dan Swartzendruber
> Dan Swartzendruber wrote:
> > Regardless of that,
> > you'll forgive me if I don't take a handwave like this from an anonymous
> > poster about what NESF would or wouldn't do?
>
> I ain't anonymous. More people know me as "Sea Wasp" than know me by my
> real name, since I've been using that name since '77.
Oh please. I don't care if you've been posting under this pseudo since
the Franco-Prussian War. I don't know who you are, or what connection
(if any) you have to the publishing/editing world. Jim Mann, I know (and
what some of his connections are). Ditto Laurie. I didn't know Lis was
involved with NESFA (which a previous post seemed to imply), but at least
there is a real name there (and likely others knew this already).
Occasionally, others have posted here who are real people known to be
involved in the SF writing/editing/publishing world (joatsimeon, for ex),
and if someone like Steve says something like that, there's some degree
of credibility.
Buz O.
Bailey" runs Baen's Web site. I think you can probably
conclude from that, he knows just a little of Baen's
plans. Course from what I've read so far in this
thread .... that might mean he is an automatic pop up
target, for some of people. Too bad ... he's a nice
guy and loves SF a lot himself.
But like he said (paraphrase), "Why not read it, before
you spout off about it?"
And your "plan" of Baen busting out with it ... then it
being published by NESF seems a little far fetched.
Why would they bother; if it has already been
demonstrated through actual sales that there is a lack
interest & demand from the public?
Come on ... I'm just happy Baen is getting the stories
back out. I liked them the first time around, and from
what I know of Eric Flint, he has probably treated them
with some amount of "reverence" in his editing of them.
Buz Ozburn
Dan Swartzendruber wrote in message ...
aRJay
writes
>Dan Swartzendruber wrote:
>>
>> In article <38E60FEB...@mediaone.net>, lis....@mediaone.net
>> says...
>> > Borders carries NESFA Press books--including _The Best of James H.
>> > Schmitz_. You can find our books on Amazon and Barnesandnoble.com. We
>> > have our own website with a full catalog online; we can't do e-sales
>> > yet, but you can print an order form and fax or mail your order
>> > directly from us.
>>
>> for at least a couple of years now. It only contains about 1/4 of the
>> stories I know of. Last I asked, there were no plans to do any further
>> books in that line. So what was plan B?
>
> Baen fails. Drops license. NESFA publishes 'em.
>
>
aren't publishing?
aRJay
writes
>aRJay wrote:
>
>> Uh Lis how easy is the NESFA book to find if you are like I was a few
>> years ago i.e. not into fandom,
>
>We regularly get the new ones and can order the older ones.
>
problem?
You know I really do wish I wasn't feeling so mellow at the moment so
that I could comfortably hack your text to loose the full point as well
as you did to mine.
Sea Wasp
> And for the people not resident in the US (like myself) this solves the
> problem?
Yes. You're online. www.borders.com.
And if you're in several parts of the UK, or Singapore, or certain
parts of Australia, you can STILL go into your local Borders..
Sea Wasp
>
> In article <38E61C...@wizvax.net>, sea...@wizvax.net says...
> > Dan Swartzendruber wrote:
> > > Regardless of that,
> > > you'll forgive me if I don't take a handwave like this from an anonymous
> > > poster about what NESF would or wouldn't do?
> >
> > I ain't anonymous. More people know me as "Sea Wasp" than know me by my
> > real name, since I've been using that name since '77.
>
> Oh please. I don't care if you've been posting under this pseudo since
> the Franco-Prussian War. I don't know who you are, or what connection
> (if any) you have to the publishing/editing world.
And I made no claims to BE a member of the publishing/editing world
that I recall.
This does not make me anonymous.
Dan Swartzendruber
> > Oh please. I don't care if you've been posting under this pseudo since
> > the Franco-Prussian War. I don't know who you are, or what connection
> > (if any) you have to the publishing/editing world.
>
> And I made no claims to BE a member of the publishing/editing world
> that I recall.
I never said you did. Nice strawman. You *did* make a flip comment
about "and they can then be published by NESFA" or some such. Without
any knowledge of your identity, I have no way of knowing how realistic
that is.
> This does not make me anonymous.
I guess you have a different set of definitions than you. I post under
mu real name. People here (such as Jim and Laurie) know who I am (we
have worked at the same company in the past). They can attach whatever
credibility (or lack of same) they wish to my posts based on knowledge of
who I am. You are Sea Wasp. This is not a real person, and might as
well be The Energizer Bunny. How the hell is that not anonymous?
Sea Wasp
1) As the Sea Wasp, I have been a resident of this group and others for
many years. The Sea Wasp as a resident of cyberspace has his own
identity built up over nearly a quarter century. The Sea Wasp is who I
am online; it still feels a bit odd when I receive Email addressed to my
real name.
2) My real name and address are available for anyone who wants them, by
looking at my web site, which is right there in my .signature.
Anonymous means that you don't know, nor can you easily discover, the
identity of the person, or that at the least he or she goes to some
lengths to HIDE that identity.
This does not apply in this case, since I go to no effort to hide my
identity. I continue to call myself "Sea Wasp" because those I
correspond with online KNOW me by that name. A great many of them don't
know, nor care, what my real name is, and wouldn't know who the hell
"Ryk E. Spoor" was if they saw a post/email from him.
Elisabeth Carey
>
> In article <38E614...@wizvax.net>, Sea Wasp <sea...@wizvax.net>
> writes
> >Dan Swartzendruber wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <38E60FEB...@mediaone.net>, lis....@mediaone.net
> >> says...
> >> > Borders carries NESFA Press books--including _The Best of James H.
> >> > Schmitz_. You can find our books on Amazon and Barnesandnoble.com. We
> >> > have our own website with a full catalog online; we can't do e-sales
> >> > yet, but you can print an order form and fax or mail your order
> >> > directly from us.
> >>
> >> Well, I have a hardback of "The Best of James H. Schmitz". I've had it
> >> for at least a couple of years now. It only contains about 1/4 of the
> >> stories I know of. Last I asked, there were no plans to do any further
> >> books in that line. So what was plan B?
> >
> > Baen fails. Drops license. NESFA publishes 'em.
> >
> >
> The way Ace has dropped the license on all those Piper titles they
> aren't publishing?
Publishing contracts generally have a reversion clause. If the books
stay out of print for a stated length of time, the author, or the
author's estate, can give notice and get the rights back. If Ace
doesn't print the books, and the estate gets an offer from someone who
wants to, Ace will not be able to hang on to them. Same with Baen and
the Schmitz books.
Lis Carey
Dan Swartzendruber
> 2) My real name and address are available for anyone who wants them, by
> looking at my web site, which is right there in my .signature.
Fair enough. Then again, it's not clear how I should have known this. I
have never before met someone who routinely posts under a pseudo, but
actually puts a URL in their sig that has their real name. Who'd a thunk
it :)
Dan Swartzendruber
says...
> Dan Swartzendruber wrote:
> DS> I guess you have a different set of definitions
> > than you. I post under my real name.
>
> We have no way of knowing that. All we can say is
> that you're using a more mundane name than Sea Wasp.
No offense, but this is silly. Obviously Sea Wasp is not a real name.
Conversely, certainly I could post under a real-sounding alias for
duplicitous reasons, but why assume that?
> DS> [People] can attach whatever credibility (or lack of same)
> > they wish to my posts based on knowledge of who I am.
>
> No, we form opinions on what you say from what you've
> said before. All we need is a consistent posting label.
> "Gharlane of Eddore" or "Ahasuerus the Wandering Jew" or
> "Dan Swartzendruber" all build online reputations the same way.
Nice snip job there. Totally changed the meaning of my sentence. My
point was that in virtual space, at least the people who know me in the
real world can evaluate things a little more reliably.
> Sea Wasp writes:
> SW> As the Sea Wasp, I have been a resident of this group and others
> > for many years. The Sea Wasp as a resident of cyberspace has
> > his own identity built up over nearly a quarter century.
>
> I certainly know you, the sorts of things you're likely to
> say, and the merit of your arguments, far more than I know
> Dan or his opinions. I have years of experience with you.
> Anyone whose read this group for more than a few weeks does.
> I can get some sense of who Dan is from Deja, but really,
> he's not one of the names here that I can attach a meaningful
> personality attached that's meaningful to, like Nancy
> Lebovitz and maybe a score of others. I was surprised
> at how long he's been here according to Deja, as his
> name wasn't ringing any bells.
>
>
>
>
Sea Wasp
Eight or ten years ago, you'd have been the oddball posting under your
real name.
Sea Wasp
>
> In article <828663DC7DAB...@netzero.net>, stru...@netzero.net
> says...
> > Dan Swartzendruber wrote:
> > DS> I guess you have a different set of definitions
> > > than you. I post under my real name.
> >
> > We have no way of knowing that. All we can say is
> > that you're using a more mundane name than Sea Wasp.
>
> No offense, but this is silly. Obviously Sea Wasp is not a real name.
I am now sorely tempted to go out and change my name legally to "Sea
Wasp".
If I weren't married, I think I *WOULD*.
Sea Wasp
>
> In article <38E6A3...@wizvax.net>, Sea Wasp <sea...@wizvax.net> wrote:
> >Dan Swartzendruber wrote:
> >> Fair enough. Then again, it's not clear how I should have known this. I
> >> have never before met someone who routinely posts under a pseudo, but
> >> actually puts a URL in their sig that has their real name. Who'd a thunk
> >> it :)
> >
> > Eight or ten years ago, you'd have been the oddball posting under your
> >real name.
>
> statement is greatly exaggerated.
Really... lessee.
*BONG!*
You're right.
I'm stuck in the early '90s.
Jeez, ten years ago is only in 1990.
Well, when I started in '76, NO ONE used real names. (Most of them used
names taken from Lord of the Rings, from what I recall... or from some
other SF sources. My first handle was Kimball Kinnison. Sea Wasp wasn't
along until a year later)
Dan Swartzendruber
> Dan Swartzendruber wrote:
> > No offense, but this is silly.
> > Obviously Sea Wasp is not a real name.
>
> posting using what doesn't look to be a "real name" in your view
> influences how you read the words. It's a problem some people
Please go back and reread my post before continuing down this road. I
never said (or implied) that Sea Wasp was not credible, or that I
discount postings by pseudonyms. What I was saying was that if it is a
person with a real name, I have a chance to know, with a greater degree
of certainty, what their credentials are (ex: if Steve Stirling posts
about a military history story, etc...)
> DS> Nice snip job there. Totally changed the meaning of my sentence.
> > My point was that in virtual space, at least the people who know
> > me in the real world can evaluate things a little more reliably.
>
> Some small number of people here know you offline. 99% of us
> don't. If by focusing on the latter part of that I changed the
> meaning of what you said, I apologize. I just didn't see that
> taking a second-hand opinion from people I don't know are real
> that you are real is meaningful.
Wow, no wonder we were on the wrong wavelength. See my previous
paragraph. That's all I meant.
aRJay
writes
>aRJay wrote:
>
>> And for the people not resident in the US (like myself) this solves the
>> problem?
>
> Yes. You're online. www.borders.com.
>
> And if you're in several parts of the UK, or Singapore, or certain
>parts of Australia, you can STILL go into your local Borders..
>
paragraph of the quoted post.
I thank you for this information (that Borders have invaded) I was
unaware of this.
And if I ever see one of these stores or on my next opportunity to visit
a specialist SF bookshop I will look in wonder at any NESFA books they
have available and then probably slink out before my bank manager
catches me spending money I don't have on hardbacks.
George D. Phillies
On Sat, 1 Apr 2000, Elisabeth Carey wrote:
>
> Publishing contracts generally have a reversion clause.
"generally", like "close" only counts in horse shows and hand grenades.
> If the books
> stay out of print for a stated length of time, the author, or the
> author's estate, can give notice and get the rights back.
Not in this case, or so I am told by people closely familiar with the
matter. It has been reported that the rights were purchased after Piper
died.
George
J. B. Moreno
> Parenthetically, does one have to "legally" change a name?
> I thought one could use any name desired, as long as it wasn't
> for reasons of fraud. Granted, much of life one deals with
> stodgy institutions that want three forms of ID to do something,
> so in practice one would probably have to slog through legal
> swamps, but is it necessary in theory?
Depends upon what you mean by "legally" -- you can always introduce
yourself by any name you like and that's not a problem. You can
generally have anything you like put on your checks.
Getting a drivers license or a passport with a different name on it can
be a bit difficult but isn't impossible.
Still, if you really want to go by a new name, it'd be a lot easier
(especially for those over 18) to do so by seeing a magistrate and
spending $10 to get a piece of paper saying that you were X and now are
Z. Drivers license, passport, credit cards, social security -- they all
just fall into place at that point. But no, it's not required (not a
lawyer, but I've seen it done both ways when I was younger and slightly
more involved with real life).
--
John B. Moreno
Sea Wasp
> I fail to see the utility for most people of using corny handles
> instead of one's real name. It seems just as inexplicable and
> clumsy as those idiot spamblockers.
Utility? None. Fun? Lots.
What little utility might come from it is to be able to talk more
freely as someone else than you might as yourself. In the old days, when
most of us were socially deprived geeks, anything that allowed you to
talk more freely, or to be someone that you weren't, was encouraged. It
was part of the culture.
The Wasp is basically like the real me -- I don't think I've expressed
opinions as the Sea Wasp that I don't hold in RL -- but initially the
separation of "me" from the Sea Wasp made conversations easier. After
twenty-three years, it's an ingrained habit.
David G. Bell
sea...@wizvax.net "Sea Wasp" wrote:
> aRJay wrote:
>
> > Uh Lis how easy is the NESFA book to find if you are like I was a few
> > years ago i.e. not into fandom,
>
> Well, Borders carries the NESFA books. I know, I work there part-time.
> We regularly get the new ones and can order the older ones.
You managed to snip a crucial detail, "not in the US".
Though, pre-Internet, you'd have to at least be on the fringes of fandom
to even know about an American edition, even 'mass-market', if you
weren't in the US.
--
David G. Bell -- Farmer, SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.
Copyright 2000 David G. Bell
Joe Slater
> And if you're in several parts of the UK, or Singapore, or certain
>parts of Australia, you can STILL go into your local Borders..
Australians often think that we have no Borders, but then I point out
the ones in our Antarctic territories.
jds
Jorj Strumolo
DS> I guess you have a different set of definitions
> than you. I post under my real name.
We have no way of knowing that. All we can say is
that you're using a more mundane name than Sea Wasp.
DS> [People] can attach whatever credibility (or lack of same)
> they wish to my posts based on knowledge of who I am.
No, we form opinions on what you say from what you've
said before. All we need is a consistent posting label.
"Gharlane of Eddore" or "Ahasuerus the Wandering Jew" or
"Dan Swartzendruber" all build online reputations the same way.
Sea Wasp writes:
David Goldfarb
>Dan Swartzendruber wrote:
>> Fair enough. Then again, it's not clear how I should have known this. I
>> have never before met someone who routinely posts under a pseudo, but
>> actually puts a URL in their sig that has their real name. Who'd a thunk
>> it :)
>
> Eight or ten years ago, you'd have been the oddball posting under your
>real name.
Having *been* on the net ten years ago, I can safely say that this
statement is greatly exaggerated.
--
David Goldfarb <*>|"Poor dominoes. Your pretty empire took so long
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu | to build. Now, with a snap of history's fingers...
aste...@slip.net | down it goes."
gold...@csua.berkeley.edu | -- Alan Moore, _V for Vendetta_
Simon van Dongen
wrote:
>On Friday, in article <38E4A9...@wizvax.net>
> sea...@wizvax.net "Sea Wasp" wrote:
>
>> Based on Flint's description of his edits, don't buy this. Wait for
>> someone to reprint who has a vague respect for the original author.
>
>I'd rather trust Eric Flint than I would you.
I'd rather trust James H. Schmitz than Eric Flint. However, it seems
that (for some stories at least) I'm not going to get the opportunity.
Did you see Eric's description of his edits? Lecturing a dead author
of Schmitz's stature at length about the proper way to start a story,
and then boldly reassuring the readers that he's fixed the mistakes
that that poor misguided soul made...
It doesn't inspire confidence.
--
Simon van Dongen <sg...@xs4all.nl> Rotterdam, The Netherlands
'My doctor says I have a malformed public duty gland and a
natural deficiency in moral fibre,' he muttered to himself,
'and that I am therefore excused from saving Universes.'
Life, the universe and everything
Jon Leech
>David Goldfarb wrote:
>> In article <38E6A3...@wizvax.net>, Sea Wasp <sea...@wizvax.net> wrote:
>> >Eight or ten years ago, you'd have been the oddball posting under your
>> >real name.
>>
>> Having *been* on the net ten years ago, I can safely say that this
>> statement is greatly exaggerated.
Ditto.
> Really... lessee.
>
> *BONG!*
>
> You're right.
>
> I'm stuck in the early '90s.
>
> Jeez, ten years ago is only in 1990.
>
> Well, when I started in '76, NO ONE used real names.
Then there must have been an awfully big change between 1976 and
1980, when I got on MIT-MC, since the great majority of us used our real
names to sign email back then.
See the SF-LOVERS archives on sflovers.rutgers.edu for an example,
or most other archived mailing lists of that era.
Jon
__@/
Jorj Strumolo
> No offense, but this is silly.
> Obviously Sea Wasp is not a real name.
Okay, you're stuck on covers. The mere fact that someone is
posting using what doesn't look to be a "real name" in your view
influences how you read the words. It's a problem some people
have, to be sure. Others try to actually judge the context of
the posts. There are people here with unreal-looking names
who are clearly worth reading. There are people here with
real-looking names who are not. And vice-versa. Names aren't
a strong factor in judging context, for regular posters.
DS> Nice snip job there. Totally changed the meaning of my sentence.
> My point was that in virtual space, at least the people who know
> me in the real world can evaluate things a little more reliably.
Some small number of people here know you offline. 99% of us
don't. If by focusing on the latter part of that I changed the
meaning of what you said, I apologize. I just didn't see that
taking a second-hand opinion from people I don't know are real
that you are real is meaningful.
Sea Wasp writes:
SW> I am now sorely tempted to go out and
> change my name legally to "Sea Wasp".
People have done it. "Futurity 2335" or whatever. One's
forever reading little bits like that in newspaper fillers.
Lucy Kemnitzer
wrote:
>David Goldfarb wrote:
>>
>> In article <38E6A3...@wizvax.net>, Sea Wasp <sea...@wizvax.net> wrote:
>> >Dan Swartzendruber wrote:
>> >> Fair enough. Then again, it's not clear how I should have known this. I
>> >> have never before met someone who routinely posts under a pseudo, but
>> >> actually puts a URL in their sig that has their real name. Who'd a thunk
>> >> it :)
>> >
>> > Eight or ten years ago, you'd have been the oddball posting under your
>> >real name.
>>
>> Having *been* on the net ten years ago, I can safely say that this
>> statement is greatly exaggerated.
>
> Really... lessee.
>
> *BONG!*
>
> You're right.
>
> I'm stuck in the early '90s.
>
> Jeez, ten years ago is only in 1990.
>
>
> Well, when I started in '76, NO ONE used real names. (Most of them used
>names taken from Lord of the Rings, from what I recall... or from some
>other SF sources. My first handle was Kimball Kinnison. Sea Wasp wasn't
>along until a year later)
>
I fail to see the utility for most people of using corny handles
instead of one's real name. It seems just as inexplicable and
clumsy as those idiot spamblockers.
There are people who have special circumstances which make using a
pseudonym sensible for them, but using a handle "just because" has
always seemed, well, inscrutable.
Lucy Kemnitzer
(using the only name I have ever voluntarily used: that is,
sometimes I respond to people who call me by my husband's last
name, but that's only because I've outgrown being adamant about
there being no such person. Besides, if someone writes me a check
with his last name on it, my credit union is quite happy to cash
it for me)
Klyfix
<stru...@netzero.net> writes:
>
> Dan Swartzendruber wrote:
> > No offense, but this is silly.
> > Obviously Sea Wasp is not a real name.
>
> Okay, you're stuck on covers. The mere fact that someone is
> posting using what doesn't look to be a "real name" in your view
> influences how you read the words. It's a problem some people
> have, to be sure. Others try to actually judge the context of
> the posts. There are people here with unreal-looking names
> who are clearly worth reading. There are people here with
> real-looking names who are not. And vice-versa. Names aren't
> a strong factor in judging context, for regular posters.
>
How does that saying go? "On the Internet no one knows you're
a talking dog." And if the talking dog can talk intelligently, why
should we care?
Unless somebody has some degree of fame (like a writer) a True
Name has not a bit of value over a "handle" or whatever. Most of us
haven't met and won't meet most of the people who post; our
judgements about them are based on what they say online. And the
alternate names people use are more distinctive and perhaps more
appropreate than whatever name their parents stuck them with. Can't
really understand that whole "Use Your Real Name" hang-up some folk
have. Oh well.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. S. Greene : kly...@aol.com : Boston, near Arkham...
Eckzylon: http://m1.aol.com/klyfix/eckzylon.html
RPG and SF, predictions, philosophy, and other things.
thomas monaghan
>
Tom
Kevin Scott Eaches
>
> Arnold Bailey wrote:
> >
> > From: "Eric Flint" <efl...@home.com>
>
> Based on Flint's description of his edits, don't buy this. Wait for
> someone to reprint who has a vague respect for the original author.
>
> Sea Wasp http://www.wizvax.net/seawasp/index.html
> /^\
> ;;; _Morgantown: The Jason Wood Chronicles_, at
> http://www.hyperbooks.com/catalog/20040.html
Hey, Wasp - I'm a Schmitz fan, and you're crazy. I picked up the book
and actually READ it - and loved it. Why don't you actually read it
before making less-than-reasoned comments about it? Because I've been
looking for Schimtz reprints for years - and can't afford hardbacks, so
I will NOT buy the hardback that you've mentioned. I lucked out, getting
the Witches of Karres in paperback from a used bookshop, but I was VERY
lucky. If the books aren't in print, others won't be able to enjoy them.
So actually READ the things before you go denouncing them. If you
honestly hate it after you read it, then sure, tell people not to read
them. But doing that before-hand, based simply on descriptions of
editing, make you look rather reactionary and foolish, IMO.
Kevin Eaches
kea...@columbus.rr.com
David E. Siegel
aRJay <aR...@escore.demon.co.uk> wrote:
<snip>
> Heck I had found fandom, SF cons and specialist bookshops for a decade
> or more before I was aware of NESFA and now aware I still don't have
any
> of their books because in general I prefer paperback (takes up less
> space, lighter) and as far as I know they only do hardbacks.
> aRJay
>
Many, perhaps most, of the NESFA books are also available in trade pb
editions. None are in the smaller mmpb format afaik.
--
-David E. Siegel
Sie...@ACM.ORG
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Sea Wasp
>
> Sea Wasp wrote:
> >
> > Arnold Bailey wrote:
> > >
> > > From: "Eric Flint" <efl...@home.com>
> >
> > Based on Flint's description of his edits, don't buy this. Wait for
> > someone to reprint who has a vague respect for the original author.
> >
> > --
> > Sea Wasp http://www.wizvax.net/seawasp/index.html
> > /^\
> > ;;; _Morgantown: The Jason Wood Chronicles_, at
> > http://www.hyperbooks.com/catalog/20040.html
>
> Hey, Wasp - I'm a Schmitz fan, and you're crazy. I picked up the book
> and actually READ it - and loved it. Why don't you actually read it
> before making less-than-reasoned comments about it?
They're quite reasoned. My reason is this:
The word "reprint" does not imply "re-edit". If the author's dead,
leave his prose alone, no matter what you liked or didn't like in his
work.
I don't **CARE** if you or anyone else, or even ME, likes the result.
That's irrelevant to the reason. I've written some stuff that probably
could use some editing. Maybe a LOT of editing. And if I send it to a
publisher who suggests some edits, I may agree to them. But if someone
decides to print something I wrote after I'm dead, then they'd damn well
better print WHAT I WROTE.
Paula Lieberman
news:MPG.134febc9e...@news.supernews.net...
> In article <38E61C...@wizvax.net>, sea...@wizvax.net says...
> > Dan Swartzendruber wrote:
> > > Regardless of that,
> > > you'll forgive me if I don't take a handwave like this from an
anonymous
> > > poster about what NESF would or wouldn't do?
> >
> > I ain't anonymous. More people know me as "Sea Wasp" than know me by my
> > real name, since I've been using that name since '77.
>
> Oh please. I don't care if you've been posting under this pseudo since
> the Franco-Prussian War. I don't know who you are, or what connection
> what some of his connections are). Ditto Laurie. I didn't know Lis was
> involved with NESFA (which a previous post seemed to imply), but at least
Lis edited the NESFA edition of _Armor of Light_ by Lisa Barnett and Melissa
Scott.
> there is a real name there (and likely others knew this already).
> Occasionally, others have posted here who are real people known to be
> involved in the SF writing/editing/publishing world (joatsimeon, for ex),
> and if someone like Steve says something like that, there's some degree
> of credibility.
Sea Wasp
>
> On Saturday, in article <38E60B...@wizvax.net>
> sea...@wizvax.net "Sea Wasp" wrote:
>
> > aRJay wrote:
> >
> > > Uh Lis how easy is the NESFA book to find if you are like I was a few
> > > years ago i.e. not into fandom,
> >
> > Well, Borders carries the NESFA books. I know, I work there part-time.
> > We regularly get the new ones and can order the older ones.
>
> You managed to snip a crucial detail, "not in the US".
Nope. It's irrelevant. If you're online and complaining, you can be
online and ordering. It might cost you a bit more, but that would be
true through snailmail orders overseas as well, so that ain't any
different; a US issue would still cost you. Hell, if you have some
reason you can't directly order it... you ARE online and talking to
people like me, who could even buy it FOR you and send it to you when
you send the money. I've done that on occasion. And had other people do
similar things for me.
(and Borders is now international -- Singapore, Scotland, England, and
Australia, and I think they're working on some other locations out
there... New Zealand? I'm only part-time so I don't keep up with the
changes quite as much as I used to)
Tetsubo
> Parenthetically, does one have to "legally" change a name?
> I thought one could use any name desired, as long as it wasn't
> for reasons of fraud. Granted, much of life one deals with
> stodgy institutions that want three forms of ID to do something,
> so in practice one would probably have to slog through legal
> swamps, but is it necessary in theory?
You can use any name you choose as long as you are not attempting to
avoid legal prosecution. Changing your name however is relatively simple.
My ex-wife changed her first and middle names in 1999. It cost $25.00 and
took five minutes in front of a probate judge. Chasing down all the banks
and government agencies to make the change took longer but cost nothing.
I have no desire to change my legal name to Tetsubo. Tetsubo is simply
the nickname I have chosen to use online. I used my legal name for years.
But changes in my private life created a desire to formally adopt a
nickname. I hope that it has no effect on how people receive the content
of my postings.
--
Tetsubo
--------------------------------------
FACTORUM TUORUM CONSCIENTIAM ACCIPITO
aRJay
<lis....@mediaone.net> writes
>aRJay wrote:
>>
>> In article <38E614...@wizvax.net>, Sea Wasp <sea...@wizvax.net>
>> writes
>> >Dan Swartzendruber wrote:
>> >>
>> >> In article <38E60FEB...@mediaone.net>, lis....@mediaone.net
>> >> says...
>> >> > Borders carries NESFA Press books--including _The Best of James H.
>> >> > Schmitz_. You can find our books on Amazon and Barnesandnoble.com. We
>> >> > have our own website with a full catalog online; we can't do e-sales
>> >> > yet, but you can print an order form and fax or mail your order
>> >> > directly from us.
>> >>
>> >> Well, I have a hardback of "The Best of James H. Schmitz". I've had it
>> >> for at least a couple of years now. It only contains about 1/4 of the
>> >> stories I know of. Last I asked, there were no plans to do any further
>> >> books in that line. So what was plan B?
>> >
>> > Baen fails. Drops license. NESFA publishes 'em.
>> >
>> >
>> The way Ace has dropped the license on all those Piper titles they
>> aren't publishing?
>
>Publishing contracts generally have a reversion clause. If the books
>stay out of print for a stated length of time, the author, or the
>doesn't print the books, and the estate gets an offer from someone who
>wants to, Ace will not be able to hang on to them. Same with Baen and
>the Schmitz books.
>
I had forgotten about reversion clauses, ghu that would probably be a
right mess in the case of Ace & Piper.
While I am here let me take the opportunity to apologise if any of my
remarks over the last day or so were out of line.
Damien Neil
>I fail to see the utility for most people of using corny handles
>instead of one's real name. It seems just as inexplicable and
>clumsy as those idiot spamblockers.
My impression is that many people, when offered the socially-acceptable
opportunity to choose their own name, rather than use the one that was
given them, will take it. Not a majority of people, by any means, but
a noticeable number.
This is especially common among (but by no means limited to!)
adolescents who relish this chance to imply a more imposing presence
than they are accustomed to casting in real life. ("Doctor Death",
rather than, "that fat kid who reads all the time".) The result of
this is that self-important, imposing names like "Doctor Death"
tend to convey an impression of immaturity.
On a rather random note, one of my friends answers interchangably
to the names "Chris" and "Albert". One is his real name, and the
other his handle in a certain discussion forum. I've known many
people who have found their on-line alias to become their off-line
name, but he is the only one I know where it is not obvious that the
alias is not his given name.
I'd ObSF "True Names", but I think it's been implied for the past
dozen posts in this thread. :>
- Damien
Elisabeth Carey
>
> In article <jKNAHbAF...@escore.demon.co.uk>,
> aRJay <aR...@escore.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> <snip>
>
> > Heck I had found fandom, SF cons and specialist bookshops for a decade
> > or more before I was aware of NESFA and now aware I still don't have
> any
> > of their books because in general I prefer paperback (takes up less
> > space, lighter) and as far as I know they only do hardbacks.
> > aRJay
> >
>
> Many, perhaps most, of the NESFA books are also available in trade pb
> editions. None are in the smaller mmpb format afaik.
Not "most", and I wouldn't even say "many". "Some". Some books we do
as trade paperbacks to begin with (The Malzberg collection, _The
Passage of the Light_, for instance), and the Boskone books, if
there's a continuing post-Boskone demand, will go into trade paperback
instead of hardcover when we reprint. The non-Boskone books that are
published in hardcover to begin with, though, stay in hardcover. That
may not be true forever, but it is now.
Lis Carey
David G. Bell
sea...@wizvax.net "Sea Wasp" wrote:
> David G. Bell wrote:
> >
> > On Saturday, in article <38E60B...@wizvax.net>
> > sea...@wizvax.net "Sea Wasp" wrote:
> >
> > > aRJay wrote:
> > >
> > > > Uh Lis how easy is the NESFA book to find if you are like I was a few
> > > > years ago i.e. not into fandom,
> > >
> > > Well, Borders carries the NESFA books. I know, I work there
> part-time.
> > > We regularly get the new ones and can order the older ones.
> >
> > You managed to snip a crucial detail, "not in the US".
>
> Nope. It's irrelevant. If you're online and complaining, you can be
> online and ordering. It might cost you a bit more, but that would be
> true through snailmail orders overseas as well, so that ain't any
> different; a US issue would still cost you. Hell, if you have some
> reason you can't directly order it... you ARE online and talking to
> people like me, who could even buy it FOR you and send it to you when
> you send the money. I've done that on occasion. And had other people do
> similar things for me.
And what about "a few years ago", a detail which you did include, but
seem to be ignoring.
Here and now, in the last year of the twentieth century, I can do all
this. But I've been involved with fandom for close on 20 years, I have
known about specialised SF bookshops, and American editions, and info
sources such as "Locus", and I was reading magazines such as "Asimov's"
and "Analog".
You've been on the Net for as long. I didn't get on until the mid-
Nineties. I found out about the last lot of Schmitz re-prints from a
review in "Analog", before I even had a modem. But if I hadn't been
getting that magazine; if all I knew about SF was that "Star Trek" and
"Doctor Who" were on TV, and there were a few shelves of books on sale
by guys such as Asimov and Heinlein; where would I have ever heard of
them.
I'm sorry to feel I have to say this, but you're presenting an image of
yourself as a typical dumb yank who is ignorant of almost everything
beyond his own back yard.
And it seems equally clear that you don't read what you're responding
too, which makes your criticism of any editing seem rather unreliable.
mike weber
("David G. Bell") typed
>I'm sorry to feel I have to say this, but you're presenting an image of
>yourself as a typical dumb yank who is ignorant of almost everything
>beyond his own back yard.
>
>And it seems equally clear that you don't read what you're responding
>too, which makes your criticism of any editing seem rather unreliable.
>
Thank you. I was thinking along those lines, but had not yet
succeeded in phrasing it nearly as elegantly.
So far, about all i'd come up with was "You sound like a dork who
doesn't listen when others are speaking because you're too busy
planning what to say back to what you failed to understand anyway."
--
"Let me take my chances on the Wall of Death" -- R.Thompson
<mike weber> <kras...@mindspring.com>
Ambitious Incomplete web site: http://weberworld.virtualave.net
mike weber
<kea...@columbus.rr.com> typed
:
>Sea Wasp wrote:
>>
>> Arnold Bailey wrote:
>> >
>> > From: "Eric Flint" <efl...@home.com>
>>
>> Based on Flint's description of his edits, don't buy this. Wait for
>> someone to reprint who has a vague respect for the original author.
>>
>> Sea Wasp http://www.wizvax.net/seawasp/index.html
>> /^\
>> ;;; _Morgantown: The Jason Wood Chronicles_, at
>> http://www.hyperbooks.com/catalog/20040.html
>
>and actually READ it - and loved it. Why don't you actually read it
>before making less-than-reasoned comments about it?
Why should he waste his time? He already knows all the answers,
unlike the rest of us poor unenlightened mortals.
>Because I've been
>looking for Schimtz reprints for years - and can't afford hardbacks, so
>I will NOT buy the hardback that you've mentioned. I lucked out, getting
>the Witches of Karres in paperback from a used bookshop, but I was VERY
>lucky. If the books aren't in print, others won't be able to enjoy them.
>So actually READ the things before you go denouncing them. If you
>honestly hate it after you read it, then sure, tell people not to read
>them. But doing that before-hand, based simply on descriptions of
>editing, make you look rather reactionary and foolish, IMO.
>
YM: "prejudiced and stupid".
Sea Wasp
> And what about "a few years ago", a detail which you did include, but
> seem to be ignoring.
Because it's NOT a few years ago.
Sea Wasp
> So far, about all i'd come up with was "You sound like a dork who
> doesn't listen when others are speaking because you're too busy
> planning what to say back to what you failed to understand anyway."
I'm sorry you feel that way, Mike.
I feel the same way about the opposite side in the debate. They don't
seem to understand WHY I don't want to see this stuff done.
mike weber
typed
:
>Kevin Scott Eaches wrote:
>> Hey, Wasp - I'm a Schmitz fan, and you're crazy. I picked up the book
>> and actually READ it - and loved it. Why don't you actually read it
>> before making less-than-reasoned comments about it?
>
> They're quite reasoned. My reason is this:
>
> The word "reprint" does not imply "re-edit". If the author's dead,
>leave his prose alone, no matter what you liked or didn't like in his
>work.
In other words, it's perfectly all right for an editor to slaughter an
author's material to the point where it bears little resemblance to
waht the author wrote, so long as he does it while the author is
alive, but it's Right Out to do the slightest bit of editing to the
work after he dies.
There are, therefore, any number of books originally published by Ace
Books that were radically edited by Wollheim or Carr, which can never
be reprinted in the form the author originally wrote, because that
would be altering the published text, which is not allowable under
your rules for reprint books.
It is possible -- i don't know, i have never seen the original
manuscripts of the Schmitz stories, though i read almost every one of
them in their original magazine form -- that what has been published
previously was modified to suit editorial whim, and was not what the
author actually originally meant to write; i'd say this is
particularly possible regarding the material originally published in
"Analog" -- if it wasn't rewritten by/for Campbell's tastes, it may
well have been "slanted" by Schmitz himself.
If one could then discover this and try to eliminate these
changes/differences from a reprint edition, would this be a Bad Thing?
>
> I don't **CARE** if you or anyone else, or even ME, likes the result.
>That's irrelevant to the reason. I've written some stuff that probably
>could use some editing. Maybe a LOT of editing. And if I send it to a
>publisher who suggests some edits, I may agree to them.
Only if you can set aside your ego in favour of getting published.
>But if someone
>decides to print something I wrote after I'm dead, then they'd damn well
>better print WHAT I WROTE.
>
Even if they don't know exactly what you wrote and what a previous
editor modified?
((Now, all that said, i have had one serious gripe with one of Jim
Baen's editorial brainstorms -- when Baen did a reprint of Manyl Wade
Wellman's "Who Frars the Devil" a few years ago, he/they elected to
present everything in the collection in strict publication order, with
the results that the page-or-less vignettes Manly had written to go
between the stories in the original edition of "Devil" wound up in one
lump about 2/3 of the way thru the book...))
Infozombie
isn't on the shelf, I'll special order a few copies for me 'n my friends.
Lisa
Remove the sinkhole from my address to respond, or your email will tumble into
it.
Sea Wasp
it raises two possibilities:
1) I'm being a jerk.
2) There's some confusion of communication which is not being resolved
well.
(well, three possibilities, since 1&2 are not mutually exclusive).
I therefore have devoted some thought to looking over the various
responses and points made, and have come to the conclusion that the
issue is fairly complex, and that the arguments which are being
presented are actually deriving from several DIFFERENT perspectives.
In a sense, some of the arguments in this case are similar to those
involved in another area of fandom to which I belong; to with, those
having to do with sub/dub/broadcast anime.
I tend to be more tolerant with regards to anime, only because
translation is a very messy business and any approach to it can often be
argued for or against depending on your point of view. This is much less
the case with a work produced in the same language that it is
theoretically being re-published as.
In either case, however, there are different ways one can be arguing
for or against the product being offered. I tend to argue things based
on my own moral or aesthetic preferences. I don't EXPECT to change what
Baen Books or Bandai Animation does; I just express my objections and
why.
I should not have directly answered the post which basically said "buy"
the book with "don't". That was waving a red flag.
Now, some of the more complex issues derive from one's own moral
preferences. One of the common arguments is "Edited Schmitz or No
Schmitz". I don't agree with the black/white proposition, but let's pass
on that. My moral position is, indeed, No Schmitz. And no, I DON'T
currently own everything he wrote, and I WOULD like to have the stories
I don't have, so it's not a matter of "Ha ha, I got mine, y'all can go
hang".
Mike Weber brings up the following point:
> In other words, it's perfectly all right for an editor to slaughter
an
> author's material to the point where it bears little resemblance to
> waht the author wrote, so long as he does it while the author is
> alive, but it's Right Out to do the slightest bit of editing to the
> work after he dies.
My position is "no, of course it isn't 'all right'". However, the major
difference in this case is that in the first case we can ascertain from
the author whether or not he or she agrees with the edits, and to what
extent, and thereby make a choice as to whether to purchase the
resulting work of editing.
In the latter case, as a general rule, there IS no such way to
determine such things.
Now, Mike also goes on to note:
> There are, therefore, any number of books originally published by Ace
> Books that were radically edited by Wollheim or Carr, which can never
> be reprinted in the form the author originally wrote, because that
> would be altering the published text, which is not allowable under
> your rules for reprint books.
>
> It is possible -- i don't know, i have never seen the original
> manuscripts of the Schmitz stories, though i read almost every one of
> them in their original magazine form -- that what has been published
> previously was modified to suit editorial whim, and was not what the
> author actually originally meant to write; i'd say this is
> particularly possible regarding the material originally published in
> "Analog" -- if it wasn't rewritten by/for Campbell's tastes, it may
> well have been "slanted" by Schmitz himself.
In these cases, it depends to a great extent on just how you intend to
decide what is and isn't the "real" manuscript. In some cases, you have
three versions of a story available, all of them ostensibly written by
the same man or woman, but with significant differences. If there are
ways to tell which one the author preferred (letters or recorded
commentary) then the choice of which one to use is fairly obvious. In
cases where such evidence is lacking, yes, that's the kind of editorial
decision which will have to be made upon reprint -- though, being the
purist I am, I would prefer, if there is NO good evidence for one or the
other being the Real Version, that both versions be available.
Nonetheless, I wouldn't gripe overmuch if that were the case, and the
editor merely making a decision to go for Version B rather than A or C.
As far as I can tell, however, this is NOT the case in this instance. I
would still have objected, but much more temperately, had the editor in
question -- Mr. Flint -- stated things to the effect of "Look, Baen
insisted on these edits, and since they HAD to be done, I have done my
best to make them work."
This, alas, is not the case (or at least isn't the public face Mr.
Flint has chosen to display). The cases which Mike is postulating are
rather different from what the following passage would imply:
> > 3. Poltergeist, in the original, is a nice story ruined by a middle
section
> > so flabby it was horrible. Telzey droning on and on to Axwen about
Psych
> > 101 -- and managing to telegraph the "surprise" ending 3 times over --
> > combined with the life history of Axwen told in excruciatingly
long-winded
> > detail. Dull, dull, dull. So I gave the story a major belly-tuck. Cut
> > 1500 words out of 7000. Reads much better now.
This, and other commentary made by Mr. Flint, indicates that HE was
deciding what was "good" and "bad". In a response to my post (which I
would never have seen had someone on another mailing list to which it
was posted forwarded it to me), he tries to dodge the issue by shifting
the ratio of changes from the percentage of one story to the percentage
of words in all of Schmitz' republished work. The ratio itself isn't
really that important; to me, it's the REASONING behind it. Flint isn't
saying either (A) "I found three versions of this story, and in the
first two versions he had all this excess verbiage in it, and in the
third one he'd chopped out most of it, so I decided to take the third
one", or (B) "Baen told me that this story particularly had excess flab
in it, so I had to take it out". Instead, he's saying that HE decided on
his own what was and wasn't "good" (and in another point in the same
post, #4, makes it even more explicit that he was judging Schmitz' style
and finding it wanting) and rewriting it to suit his tastes.
Now, I certainly do at times have issues with the way writers handle
their work. There have even been times I have rewritten something
another author wrote, because the way the original was done simply
annoyed me. But it would never have even OCCURRED to me to do something
even vaguely like that if I were in charge of reprinting said material.
It would strike me as ethically repugnant. At least if he's alive, the
author can voice his objections (even if the legal situation prevents
him from doing anything effective about it). If he's dead, he can't, and
absent any evidence that the author desired certain changes, it seems to
me self-evident that changing his work is at least mildly insulting.
Verne and Wells spent acres of time on exposition. I doubt seriously,
however, if Mr. Flint would go cutting their stuff and changing it
around, because they are bigger names from a deeper past. To me, there
wouldn't be any difference; in both cases you're judging their writing
based on standards that obviously didn't apply at the time of
publication. If they HAD applied, they wouldn't have been published.
Other issues derive directly from availability of Schmitz' work. It's
been said that the motivating issue behind the editing was that these
small (except in the case of two stories) changes were desired by Baen
to make them more palatable for new readers. Yet I have to wonder... if
the changes are as trivial as Mr. Flint would like me to believe, why
were they needed at all? And if they're not trivial, then don't I at
least have a right to be rather vocally skeptical about the integrity of
this so-called reprint? I'd like to see all of his work available. But
by the same token, I'd like to see it available IN TOTO -- warts and
all. Flint states outright that (I would presume in his opinion):
> [Sea Wasp's] comparison [of Schmitz] to Doc Smith is
> ludicrous. You would have to completely rewrite Doc Smith.
This makes his entire editorial integrity suspect. Republishing Doc
Smith implies that it's Doc's work -- purple "knives, bolts, beams,
rods, and cones of coruscating power" prose and all. His own words, and
related statements made about Schmitz' material, implies that his VERY
MODERN distaste for overexposition, overwriting, and so on is at the
least playing some part in his choice of editing -- and I, personally,
feel that this is utterly out of place in a republication of someone's
works.
I'm not running out and stripping the book out of prospective readers'
hands. If, upon reading it, the changes are mostly as inconsequential as
Mr. Flint and others would like me to believe, I might even either
purchase it, or recommend it to new people who have never read Schmitz.
None of that will change my basic position on leaving an author's work
alone when there's no way for them to even register approval or
disapproval. I consider this kind of thing a very slippery slope and one
that no editor should start travelling down.
Bill Westfield
> have never before met someone who routinely posts under a pseudo, but
> actually puts a URL in their sig that has their real name.
How would you KNOW if you had? Just because something SOUNDS like a
real name doesn't mean that it had any more reality than something that
is "obviously made up."
BillW
--
(remove spam food from return address)
Bill Westfield
Then there must have been an awfully big change between 1976 and
1980, when I got on MIT-MC, since the great majority of us used our real
names to sign email back then.
No, there was an awfully big difference between the "BBS" communities (which
would be barely in existance in 1976 - perhaps "fanzine communities"?) and
the ARPANet communities...
Dan Swartzendruber
says...
> > Fair enough. Then again, it's not clear how I should have known this. I
> > have never before met someone who routinely posts under a pseudo, but
> > actually puts a URL in their sig that has their real name.
>
> How would you KNOW if you had? Just because something SOUNDS like a
> real name doesn't mean that it had any more reality than something that
> is "obviously made up."
I've addressed this in at least 2 other posts. You apparently didn't
read them. Obviously I can't know a real-sounding name (like Bill
Westfield) is real. Unlike some though, unless given reason to believe
otherwise, I'll assume they are. Unfair as it may seem, I will also tend
to be a little less trusting of obvious pseudos, as they seem to be
abused by a certain class of immature or malicious individuals (and no,
I'm not including Sea Wasp in that class).
Bill Westfield
edition aimed at collectors who have grown rich since they first read them.
(Note: I DON'T mean to claim that NESFA editions are in that catagory
either.) I think it takes a lot of guts to republish an old author in a
mass-market venue like that, as if the stories will still hold up for modern
buyers WHO ARE NOT FANS (which I hope they will.) (Here, I'm sorta thinking
of the North Atlantic Strugeon reprints.)
Just buy them.
Bill Westfield
personality from "the old days." (or real people, for that matter, but at
least there's some chance those could be tracked down.)
Does anybody know what happened to "Lady Arwen"? (A rather consistant
personality over in one of the ancestor newsgroups the current alt.sex
groups (I guess, back in a gentler time when the net was mostly college
students and geeks.))
J. B. Moreno
> None of that will change my basic position on leaving an author's work
> alone when there's no way for them to even register approval or
> disapproval. I consider this kind of thing a very slippery slope and one
> that no editor should start travelling down.
The author is dead, he doesn't care one way or another any more.
What you're doing is trying to honor his memory -- and I think any
authors who memory is worth honoring would like to see his stories read,
even if they have been edited a little (provided that such editing isn't
butchering, Kimball-the-drag-queen fighting alongside the evil Arsian's
against the noble Eddorians is a bit much).
So to me, the question IS did they do a good job of editing.
--
John B. Moreno
Robert Sneddon
<kras...@mindspring.com> writes
>>leave his prose alone, no matter what you liked or didn't like in his
>>work.
>
>author's material to the point where it bears little resemblance to
>waht the author wrote, so long as he does it while the author is
>alive, but it's Right Out to do the slightest bit of editing to the
>work after he dies.
The author, if alive, can, in the worst possible case, pull his book
from the publisher and return any advances and royalties, if they deem
the edits perpetrated by the publisher to be too much. If he's dead,
then radically altering the text should not happen, as they can no
longer cry "Hold, enough!".
OK, I've got the older paperback edition of the book. I probably won't
be in the market for a new edition. If the text has been as radically
altered as has been suggested by some people in this dicussion -- i.e.
text removed, and some slang updated, then I feel Mr. Flint's name
should be on the front cover as co-author, rather than as an editor. If
there are simple corrections to spelling and grammar, then Mr. Schmitz's
name should stand alone.
--
Robert Sneddon
Dan Swartzendruber
says...
> OK, I've got the older paperback edition of the book. I probably won't
> be in the market for a new edition. If the text has been as radically
> altered as has been suggested by some people in this dicussion -- i.e.
> text removed, and some slang updated, then I feel Mr. Flint's name
> should be on the front cover as co-author, rather than as an editor. If
> there are simple corrections to spelling and grammar, then Mr. Schmitz's
> name should stand alone.
You know what? You've pretty much synopsized the discussion that run on
in the schmitz email list for a couple of weeks. FWIW, I absolutely
agree with you.
Mike Bruner
"J. B. Moreno" wrote:
> Sea Wasp <sea...@wizvax.net> wrote:
>
> > None of that will change my basic position on leaving an author's work
> > alone when there's no way for them to even register approval or
> > disapproval. I consider this kind of thing a very slippery slope and one
> > that no editor should start travelling down.
>
> The author is dead, he doesn't care one way or another any more.
>
> What you're doing is trying to honor his memory -- and I think any
> authors who memory is worth honoring would like to see his stories read,
> even if they have been edited a little (provided that such editing isn't
> butchering, Kimball-the-drag-queen fighting alongside the evil Arsian's
> against the noble Eddorians is a bit much).
Uh, I'm afraid to ask (seeing as how I only just got the Lens books courtesy of
Sci-Fi Book Club and haven't read much yet), but did you pull this example out of
the air or... *shudder* :)
--
Mike Bruner...@delaware.infi.net
"Yes, I am a servant of Satan, but my duties are largely ceremonial".
"The wages of sin are death, but after taxes you're just left with a tired
feeling."
George D. Phillies
On 3 Apr 2000, HARRY R. ERWIN wrote:
> 5. We made progress, but like most volunteer organizations, we took our
> time.
Break here. I made a proposal to Baen and to the estate. We (I, Baen,
Estate Agent) were at the "send us the stories you are proposing to run as
a series" point. I then spent a half year asking the people who had the
copies of the stories to send me the files so I could print and send them
to Baen, and got zero cooperation from anyone on the Schmitz list, even
though we had already edited the scanned stories for scanning erorrs,
attempted to decide what to do in cases in which the *book* and *magazine*
versions of the stories were not the same, and agreed that I was supposed
to contact the Schmitz estate and Baen, which I had done.
We were ready to go with a collection, if only the persons with the efiles
had come across with them. Instead:
> 6. Eric Flint then made his proposal to Baen. Apparently Baen was getting
> tired of waiting for us, so he told Eric to go ahead.
George
aRJay
writes
>mike weber wrote:
>
>> So far, about all i'd come up with was "You sound like a dork who
>> doesn't listen when others are speaking because you're too busy
>> planning what to say back to what you failed to understand anyway."
>
> I'm sorry you feel that way, Mike.
>
> I feel the same way about the opposite side in the debate. They don't
>seem to understand WHY I don't want to see this stuff done.
>
why you don't want to see this sort of thing done, I have a similar
reaction to the latest t/r/a/v/e/s/t/y/ version of the song American
Pie. But my reaction to that is not to the announcement that a new
version was to be done but on hearing the result. You came across as
condemning the project on hearsay evidence. There was a discussion of
this on the Schmitz list and someone pointed out that if the 'new'
version sold really well we were on to a win win situation the scenario
went:-
1 First two volumes sell well
2 Baen releases second two volumes
3 Second two volumes really well
4 Public clamours for more
5 Baen release the special limited edition unexpurgated versions
6 Everybody is happy
OK I know this is unlikely to happen but it is not impossible.
HARRY R. ERWIN
: mike weber wrote:
:> So far, about all i'd come up with was "You sound like a dork who
:> doesn't listen when others are speaking because you're too busy
:> planning what to say back to what you failed to understand anyway."
: I'm sorry you feel that way, Mike.
: I feel the same way about the opposite side in the debate. They don't
: seem to understand WHY I don't want to see this stuff done.
Having been in the middle of this argument from the beginning, I have to
take issue with this purism. A little history:
1. I was one of the organizers of the Schmitz List. I was interested in
finding out whether the internet could be used to grass-roots
organizing. I posted the announcements on this newsgroup. The members of
the Schmitz List had the goal of getting Schmitz _back_in_print_. (No sign
of interest by Sea Wasp, although he was around at that point.)
2. I also made the original contact with Baen. He was interested.
3. Guy Gordon was the original editor. George Phillies, Ken Uecker, and
Gharlane of Eddore were also important in this, but we had a lot of others
involved. (Please remind me...)
4. We were looking to do one volume to start.
5. We made progress, but like most volunteer organizations, we took our
time.
6. Eric Flint then made his proposal to Baen. Apparently Baen was getting
tired of waiting for us, so he told Eric to go ahead.
7. I got wind of this (I'd have to go back into my archives to find out
how), and with the help of Arnold Bailey, made contact with Eric (or vice
versa).
8. Then I had to sell it to the Schmitz List.
9. Baen's conditions with Eric were that the book had to be a commercial
success; not just a nostalgia book for grognards. That meant the problems
with the stories (and some of these stories had _serious_ problems) had to
be fixed. Eric managed to bring us around by demonstrating he was a good
editor with a deep respect for JHS.
I believe the volumes currently in the production queue will be popular
with the new generation, _if_ we can get them into the bookstores. That is
the precondition for anything more, including republication of the
original versions.
You can't run a mass-market publishing business on nostalgia.
--
Harry Erwin, PhD, Internet: her...@gmu.edu,
Web Page: http://mason.gmu.edu/~herwin
Adjunct Professor of Computer Science, GMU
HARRY R. ERWIN
: Dan Swartzendruber wrote:
:>
:> In article <38E60FEB...@mediaone.net>, lis....@mediaone.net
:> says...
:> > Borders carries NESFA Press books--including _The Best of James H.
:> > Schmitz_. You can find our books on Amazon and Barnesandnoble.com. We
:> > have our own website with a full catalog online; we can't do e-sales
:> > yet, but you can print an order form and fax or mail your order
:> > directly from us.
:>
:> Well, I have a hardback of "The Best of James H. Schmitz". I've had it
:> for at least a couple of years now. It only contains about 1/4 of the
:> stories I know of. Last I asked, there were no plans to do any further
:> books in that line. So what was plan B?
: Baen fails. Drops license. NESFA publishes 'em.
He doesn't have a _license_. NESFA can still publish them. But work out
the bloody economics. Nostalgia will not get another volume of Schmitz in
print. Only popularity with the new generation will do that.
pss...@my-deja.com
style remain Schmitz. This book also has a couple of short stories that
had previously only been published in a magazine format and that I had
not previously read. Please don't discourgage anyone from picking up
this book and getting hooked on Schmitz. At least read the book before
you start critizizing! To do otherwise is a dis-service to your friends,
to yourself and to the genuis of Schmitz.
--
You ain't cheating you arn't trying hard enough.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
mike weber
typed
:
>mike weber wrote:
>
>> So far, about all i'd come up with was "You sound like a dork who
>> doesn't listen when others are speaking because you're too busy
>> planning what to say back to what you failed to understand anyway."
>
> I'm sorry you feel that way, Mike.
>
> I feel the same way about the opposite side in the debate. They don't
>seem to understand WHY I don't want to see this stuff done.
>
you were doing came across as restating your original position more
slowly and distinctly in hopes that the poor ignorant savages would
understand.
I have responded to your comments on what you think a "reprint" should
constitute where you made them.
Jorj Strumolo
K > How does that saying go? "On the Internet no one
> knows you're a talking dog." And if the talking
> dog can talk intelligently, why should we care?
No one should. I like text communication because in many ways
it lets me be more real than I can be in person. I don't have
to deal with my shyness, or people who judge on the basis of
looks or accent or other communication irrelevancies. One
doesn't have to deal with people hogging the conversation,
and if people do so online their posts are easily ignored or
filtered. No one ever interrupts. It's a more civilized venue.
K > Can't really understand that whole "Use Your
> Real Name" hang-up some folk have. Oh well.
It's a shortcoming, to be sure. It's one thing if a human
afraid of spiders has a problem dealing with an arachnoid
alien, but isn't the SF ideal that we're supposed to be
open-minded, and not judge on such a basis?
Tetsubo writes:
> Changing your name however is relatively simple. My
> ex-wife changed her first and middle names in 1999. It cost
> $25.00 and took five minutes in front of a probate judge.
Dealing with people in person is fundamentally unsimple.
Dealing with officialdom merely makes the difficult more so.
T > changes in my private life created a desire to formally
> adopt a nickname. I hope that it has no effect on how
> people receive the content of my postings.
It does. Some people can't get beyond covers.
Damien Neil writes:
DN> My impression is that many people, when offered the socially-
> acceptable opportunity to choose their own name, rather
> than use the one that was given them, will take it. Not a
> majority of people, by any means, but a noticeable number.
Because parents are criminal when it comes to handing out
names. I've always been of a mind that kids should have utterly
neutral names, so there's one less reason for the young beasts
that are their peers to torture them. Let them choose their
real name when they're 21 or whatever.
DN> self-important, imposing names like "Doctor Death"
> tend to convey an impression of immaturity.
Yes, this is clearly what some people see. But that's mostly
a phenomenon of group and place. You *expect* that on a teen
BBS or in a chat room. But online names in other places don't
have the baggage. I play online Scrabble Kriemhilde and
SeaRose. I have discussions with Rex Irae, Albertus Magnus,
Scheherazade, and manage to judge them on what's said, not the
label saying it.
bi...@flipper.cisco.com writes:
BW> How would you KNOW if you had? Just because something
> SOUNDS like a real name doesn't mean that it had any
> more reality than something that is "obviously made up."
Dan Swartzendruber writes:
DS> I've addressed this in at least 2 other posts.
Yes. The discussion moved on, as often happens. Whether you
assume real-looking names are real, or others assume no names
are, or people simply judge what's said on its own merit is no
longer the issue. We've moved on to why some people have name
prejudices, and why some people favor non-mundane labels.
Paula Lieberman
news:54ya6wg...@flipper.cisco.com...
> Aw, come on. The Baen books are PAPERBACKS, not some expensive gold-edged
> edition aimed at collectors who have grown rich since they first read
them.
> (Note: I DON'T mean to claim that NESFA editions are in that catagory
> either.) I think it takes a lot of guts to republish an old author in a
About NESFA Press "NESFA's Choice" editions [if I get anything too far off
Lis will post pinning my ears back....]:
NESFA Choice editions exist because at least one person has convinced a
majority of the voting members of NESFA that NESFA should publish a
particular book, for individual volumes, and the line exists generally
because the majority of the continuing voting members of NESFA -want- such
books in print, and available, in permanent editions which will last -- as
opposed to
disintegrated-over-the-years-from-acid-paper-and-bad-bindings-and-many-times
-reading paperback editions -- and in the form, generally, that the authors
wanted them in (in some instances NESFA's included alternate texts....].
If a majority of the voting members at a meeting don't get persuaded that
NESFA should publish the book, the project is a no-go. Criteria for
publication varies -- usually one of the main ones, is that this be a book
which the people voting on want to read and buy. If a member isn't
interested in reading and buying the book, that member generally won't vote
for NESFA going forward with the proposal for the book. There are a few
exceptions here and there, for various reasons, but... another criterion is
that the book at least break even within a reasonable amount of time for
production costs and royalty payment and such, and another that there's a
demand for the book -- if the membership doesn't want the book, and NESFA's
membership reflects a broad range of tastes, why would other readers be more
generally interested!
In some cases, NESFA's published stuff because some of the members want a
copy of the material, and it's just not available. In others, the
membership feels that the material SHOULD be available, and isn't -- like
the Kornbluth material, before NESFA published the Kornbluth book, and the
Cordwainer Smith material, before the publications of those two volumes, and
the Clement volumes, etc.
Again, there are some built-in market considerations -- the people involved
in producing NESFA Books are readers who buy books, and what we're not
interested in reading/buying, we don't much tend to be interested in
publishing!
> mass-market venue like that, as if the stories will still hold up for
modern
> buyers WHO ARE NOT FANS (which I hope they will.) (Here, I'm sorta
thinking
> of the North Atlantic Strugeon reprints.)
>
> Just buy them.
>
thomas monaghan
>> aRJay wrote:
>>>
>>> In article <38E614...@wizvax.net>, Sea Wasp <sea...@wizvax.net>
>>> writes
>>>> Dan Swartzendruber wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> In article <38E60FEB...@mediaone.net>, lis....@mediaone.net
>>>>> says...
>>>>>> Borders carries NESFA Press books--including _The Best of James H.
>>>>>> Schmitz_. You can find our books on Amazon and Barnesandnoble.com. We
>>>>>> have our own website with a full catalog online; we can't do e-sales
>>>>>> yet, but you can print an order form and fax or mail your order
>>>>>> directly from us.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, I have a hardback of "The Best of James H. Schmitz". I've had it
>>>>> for at least a couple of years now. It only contains about 1/4 of the
>>>>> stories I know of. Last I asked, there were no plans to do any further
>>>>> books in that line. So what was plan B?
>>>>
>>>> Baen fails. Drops license. NESFA publishes 'em.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> The way Ace has dropped the license on all those Piper titles they
>>> aren't publishing?
>>
>> Publishing contracts generally have a reversion clause. If the books
>> stay out of print for a stated length of time, the author, or the
>> author's estate, can give notice and get the rights back. If Ace
>> doesn't print the books, and the estate gets an offer from someone who
>> wants to, Ace will not be able to hang on to them. Same with Baen and
>> the Schmitz books.
>>
> I had forgotten about reversion clauses, ghu that would probably be a
> right mess in the case of Ace & Piper.
>
> While I am here let me take the opportunity to apologise if any of my
> remarks over the last day or so were out of line.
> --
> How does a rocket/jet engine work?
> "It's not that hard.
> Stuff goes in, stuff happens, stuff goes out faster than it came in."
> - Ian Stirling
> aRJay
Pipers books will not revert Ace bought them from the state of PA because
Pipers estate was owned by PA after his deadth.
Tom
Travis Butler
kras...@mindspring.com (mike weber) wrote:
>On Sun, 02 Apr 2000 02:33:25 -0500, Sea Wasp <sea...@wizvax.net>
>typed
>:
>>Kevin Scott Eaches wrote:
>
>>> Hey, Wasp - I'm a Schmitz fan, and you're crazy. I picked up the book
>>> and actually READ it - and loved it. Why don't you actually read it
>>> before making less-than-reasoned comments about it?
>>
>> They're quite reasoned. My reason is this:
>>
>> The word "reprint" does not imply "re-edit". If the author's dead,
>>leave his prose alone, no matter what you liked or didn't like in his
>>work.
>
>In other words, it's perfectly all right for an editor to slaughter an
>author's material to the point where it bears little resemblance to
>waht the author wrote, so long as he does it while the author is
>alive, but it's Right Out to do the slightest bit of editing to the
>work after he dies.
You seem to be *deliberately* missing his point, here.
When you edit while an author is alive, the author presumably has some
voice in the matter... or at least some recourse. They can choose to allow
editing. Or, they can refuse to sell the story, they can sign a contract
forbidding editing or allowing them final review of the edits before
publication -- and if they do this and the publisher edits anyway, or edits
in a way they don't approve and publishes anyway, they can sue for breach
of contract. Thus, you the reader have at least some assurance that what
goes out under an author's name is the story they wanted to tell. (Only
'some' assurance -- I've heard bad stories about what Gold did with Galaxy
Magazine in the 50's, and there was that ST:TNG book a couple of years ago
by Anastaso (? don't remember the spelling) -- but it's better than
nothing.)
OTOH, when an author is edited after he's dead, the reader has no assurance
that this is the story the author wanted to tell, because the author (being
dead) has no influence over what goes out under his name. If you're selling
something based on an author's name, it should be that author's work -- at
least if you believe in truth-in-advertising.
How's that for a practical argument, leaving aside things like author's
rights?
mike weber
typed
:
What was routinely done to people like Dickson and Anderson and so on
by ACE -- from ludicrous titles to majopr slash-and-burn abridgements
-- would tend to indicate that, depending on the market, an author may
not have much choice if he really wants to buy hamburgers next week,
I was specifically thinking of those "editing" jobs that (primarliy, i
believe) Don Wollheim did for ACE in the 50s/60s, when i wrote the
above. (See if you can find a copy of the Ace Double that includes a
story called "The Genetic General" By Gordon Dickson. Then compare it
with (i think) "Dorsai!")
But a lot of writers intentionally wrote completely different stories
than they might have to sell to, say Campbell at "Astounding" or Gold
or whoever was editting F&SF that year... This also counts as
"editing".
Mark 'Kamikaze' Hughes
Sea Wasp <sea...@wizvax.net> spake:
>Lucy Kemnitzer wrote:
>> I fail to see the utility for most people of using corny handles
>> instead of one's real name. It seems just as inexplicable and
>> clumsy as those idiot spamblockers.
> Utility? None. Fun? Lots.
There is utility to it - identifying different individuals. There are
multiple people named "Mark Hughes", at least a half-dozen online that I
know of, and at least one other is an SF fan, RPGer, and computer
programmer (but then, another's a soccer player, so it means nothing, I
think). The Hollywood actors' guild had to establish rules that no two
actors could have the same working name to resolve this problem.
Nicknames and pseudonyms are very useful things.
But there's a more important point to it: the right and ability to
choose your own identity. "Kamikaze" is my nickname and chosen name; it
was initially applied to me as "that kamikaze bastard" from my strategy
in an online wargame 15 years ago (it was similar to Trade Wars, on a
BBS), but it describes a number of my more, er, unique traits on- and
off-line. "Mark Hughes" is just two nonsense words my parents gave me,
without even asking me (if they had, though, I'd have been called "Waah
Bah" for the first couple years, so it's just as well, I suppose). I
could go ahead and legally change my name (and I may yet do so), but why
even bother, when I can already just be "Kamikaze"?
I'm not entirely happy with the concept of having to legally change my
name, either - gov'ts shouldn't be in the business of having ownership
lists of their subjects, nee citizens, nee free people, but that's a
libertarian rant for another time.
The "fun" part is nice, and is what made me keep it in the first
place, but it's tertiary to me at this point.
If anything, I feel kinda sorry for people like Lucy who only have
given names, and haven't been able to come up with their *own* name yet
(or ever).
There's obviously no relation to spamblockers - those A) don't work,
B) make it more difficult for people to respond to you with email, and
C) violate a number of RFCs and etiquette standards. None of those are
true about nicknames. The only problem with nicknames is that sometimes
unnicknamed people appear to have long wooden objects inserted in their
nether regions, which cause them to take offense to someone else having
one. A qualified proctologist can help with that.
--
<a href="http://kuoi.asui.uidaho.edu/~kamikaze/"> Mark Hughes </a>
Disclaimer: I do not have an orbital mind control laser; you are free to post
your own opinion, but be prepared to back it up, because I *will* call you on
it if I think it's bullshit. That's how the Internet, and life, works.
Mark 'Kamikaze' Hughes
Jorj Strumolo <stru...@netzero.net> spake:
> Dan Swartzendruber wrote:
> > No offense, but this is silly.
> > Obviously Sea Wasp is not a real name.
> Okay, you're stuck on covers. The mere fact that someone is
> posting using what doesn't look to be a "real name" in your view
> influences how you read the words.
Given and family names are the "unreal" names - you didn't get to
choose those. Nicknames, aliases, and changed names are the only ones
that are really yours.
Sea Wasp
> But a lot of writers intentionally wrote completely different stories
> than they might have to sell to, say Campbell at "Astounding" or Gold
> or whoever was editting F&SF that year... This also counts as
> "editing".
This is quite true, but still isn't the same as having it done when you
cannot even say "Hey, THAT isn't what I wrote" or, alternatively, "Hey,
that's great! Wish I'd thought of doing that!"
Even in the cases of hack and slash from the '50s, it was still
possible for the author to mention "Umm, that book? Yeah, it has my name
on it... don't see much else in there from me...". As long as he or she
was alive.
Jim Mann
HARRY R. ERWIN wrote in message <8c8pkn$l...@portal.gmu.edu>...
>He doesn't have a _license_. NESFA can still publish them. But work out
>the bloody economics. Nostalgia will not get another volume of Schmitz in
>print. Only popularity with the new generation will do that.
>
I agree that only popularity with a new generation will get old authors into
print in anythng but specialty editions. However, you don't need to edit the
books into some modern style to accomplish this. Old Earth Books' reprint of
EE Smith has been selling very, very well, yet Mike Walsh did not edit the
books at all. NESFA Press's reprints of Schmitz, Smith, Henderson,
Kornbluth, Harness, Leinster, et al have also been selling very well, and we
do nothing like the edits Flint described.
Part of the problem I have is that what Flint seems to have done, based on
his descriptions of his edits, is made an attempt to change the style of the
1950s into the style of the 1980s. This seems to me akin to taking Dickens,
deciding he's far too wordy for "modern readers," and editing it down so
that we can get into the story quicker (missing the fact that there is far
more to Dickens than that, and for those of us who love Dickens's work, that
"wordiness" is an importart part of the effect).
My attitude (and, I'd guess, the attitutes of several other here) was not
helped by the TONE of Mr. Flint's description of what he'd done.
Finally, I disliked the fact that Mr. Flint apparently read what was posted
here, and, instead of actually replying here, posted a rather sanctimonious
response to the Schmitz mailing list.
---
Jim Mann
Jim Mann
Sea Wasp wrote in message <38E795...@wizvax.net>...
>
> Now, some of the more complex issues derive from one's own moral
>preferences. One of the common arguments is "Edited Schmitz or No
>Schmitz". I don't agree with the black/white proposition, but let's pass
>on that. My moral position is, indeed, No Schmitz. And no, I DON'T
>currently own everything he wrote, and I WOULD like to have the stories
>I don't have, so it's not a matter of "Ha ha, I got mine, y'all can go
>hang".
Personally, I'd be willing to go with Schmitz that has been edited to some
degree, if it were done by an editor whose objectives were to present
Schmitz as Schmitz. If, for example, and editor of proven talent (David
Hartwell, Patrick or Teresa Nielsen Hayden, Jim Frenkel, and so on) we to
say something like: "We compared many Schmitz stories in magazines to what
he eventually approved for republication in collections. Typically, they
were somewhat shortened to do X, Y, and Z. We have edited the previously
uncollected stories in line with the types of editing done to Schmitz's
other stories. We feel that this brings these in line with other Schmitz
stories."
But that's not what Mr. Flint did. He pretty much ignored what Schmitz might
have wanted, and instead aimed at changing the style to a more modern one.
(For example, he talks about how he edited the start of one story, basically
to remove up-front information and to get the reader into the story more
quickly. That's very much in line with the way the short story has evolved
over the years, but the slower intro is quite in line with the types of
stories written at the time, and fits Schmitz's style.
---
Jim Mann
Jorj Strumolo
> Given and family names are the "unreal" names - you
> didn't get to choose those. Nicknames, aliases, and
> changed names are the only ones that are really yours.
I certainly think so. Of course we can soon extend that, in SF,
since it will become easy to change your gender, eye color, and
loads of other traits. Which then all become active statements,
instead of passive blessings/curses. I then wonder about
prejudice. A common thought path today is that you shouldn't
hold unchosen traits against someone. But what if one can say
"Well, yes, you *did* choose to be blonde and female, knowing
the stereotypes full well...."?
Nancy Lebovitz
Bill Westfield <bi...@flipper.cisco.com> wrote:
>
>Does anybody know what happened to "Lady Arwen"? (A rather consistant
>personality over in one of the ancestor newsgroups the current alt.sex
>groups (I guess, back in a gentler time when the net was mostly college
>students and geeks.))
>
whether it's the same person.
--
Nancy Lebovitz na...@netaxs.com www.nancybuttons.com
The calligraphic button website is up!
Nancy Lebovitz
Lucy Kemnitzer <rit...@cruzio.com> wrote:
>
>I fail to see the utility for most people of using corny handles
>instead of one's real name. It seems just as inexplicable and
>clumsy as those idiot spamblockers.
>
you've got a definite personality and a somewhat unusual name, but
most on-line people with "normal" names just blur together for me,
especially now that distinctive .sigs have more or less gone out of
fashion.
The only reason I didn't use a handle is that thinking of one for myself
didn't (and doesn't) come naturally to me, but I think handles add a
bit of fun..
Nancy Lebovitz
J. B. Moreno <pl...@newsreaders.com> wrote:
>Sea Wasp <sea...@wizvax.net> wrote:
>
>> None of that will change my basic position on leaving an author's work
>> alone when there's no way for them to even register approval or
>> disapproval. I consider this kind of thing a very slippery slope and one
>> that no editor should start travelling down.
>
>The author is dead, he doesn't care one way or another any more.
>
>What you're doing is trying to honor his memory -- and I think any
It isn't just a matter of honoring the author's memory--it's also
giving readers (some of whom have a precisionist level of interest in
the exact details of the stories) a chance to know which version they're
getting.
>authors who memory is worth honoring would like to see his stories read,
>even if they have been edited a little (provided that such editing isn't
>butchering, Kimball-the-drag-queen fighting alongside the evil Arsian's
>against the noble Eddorians is a bit much).
>
>So to me, the question IS did they do a good job of editing.
>